Always been GC, but now afraid I'm becoming transphobic

[HouseOfGuineaPigs]

I've always been gender critical and 100% in support of safe spaces for natal women only. I'm completely comfortable with being gender critical. But I'm concerned I've crossed a line into becoming a full on bigot, which is something I don't want to be. Due to my own background of mental health and trauma issues I follow pages on this issue on Facebook. I just saw one with a graphic post saying Using Preferred Pronouns Is Suicide Prevention and it made me want to scream and throw things.

I've been suicidal, I've attempted. I've battled see harm and self destructive behaviours since childhood. I should be sympathetic about the struggles people are having . But I feel manipulated seeing posts like that one. I use preferred names when I'm addressing trans persons. I am kind to them, I don't mention their issues. I treat them the same as anyone else. I will call a bloke Sue even if his real name is Bob, it feels odd, but I will do it to be respectful . But calling a he a she is a step too far. I would either use their name or use they.

Why do I feel so strongly that I'm being manipulated ? None of the trans people I know have abused me in any way. They haven't infringed on my boundaries . I have 2 trans friends, another who is non binary and 2 acquaintances. They have all been decent .

I just feel resentful that I'm being made to feel responsible for someone not taking their life because I don't affirm their identity ?

I'm horrible aren't I ? Please sort my head out !

This.

Who do you imagine cares what you’re talking about with your other extremely online friends?

I mean, I'm only a medium-sized brain but haven't women being saying this about VAWG data since forever?

You seem very sure that the behaviour you describe is dreadful. Do you have any opinion on the behaviour of someone who tells his parents that they are to behave as if he is dead and has been replaced by an unconvincing imitation of a woman? They are to accept this imitation as if it is as real as their actual daughter, and if they find this distressing they are bigots who are to be shunned.

It is their son, who they have known for the whole of his life, for longer than he can remember, who must not be "deadnamed". They are to pretend to be delighted at the "death" of the person they love and not allow their distress to show even for a moment. They are to affirm him in everything he desires and lie every time they mention him, even though they can see the harm the pretence does. They are not to notice the coercion and the implicit threat that if they do not play along he will cut them off. They are to accept the rudeness of his cheerleading handmaid, her screamed insults, because this is their fault for being transphobic (i.e. realists).

Did they really know their 'son' though?

Parent's being 'coerced' into accepting their children's choices/disposition isn't restricted to transgenderism. The streets are full disgruntled parents who for reasons of their's children's homosexuality/partner/job/political choice/belief are 'forced' to accept their children as autonomous beings. You act as if you own your children. You'd prefer they be miserable to meet your standards? Your rejection of their choices isn't a form of coercion?

Respecting people as they are is part of maturity. IE we can disagree with someone but be happy they are content within themselves & have found a peace that eluded them before.

Except there is zero evidence that medical intervention makes them happier! Even your star doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, admits to it!

“Depression symptoms, emotional health and CBCL constructs did not change significantly over 24 months.”

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.14.25327614v1.full-text

The consensus of experts globally disagree. In fact if the argument had been so unconvincing Dr Cass wouldn't have continued access of minors under trial.

Two things can be true at once. The overwhelming data pointing in a direction & more evidence required which is normal for many medical treatments.

How does any of that give them the right to break the law? The right to take away what little peace I have?

You aren't horrible OP, not at all, especially because you recognise what you perceive might be an issue & are willing to explore it.

Firstly, using preferred pronouns doesn't prevent suicide in the way the numbers declare. I will focus on the youth figures as I have a better understanding of this. Data from NHS England on suicides by young patients of the gender services at the Tavistock clinic showed there had not been a large rise in young gender dysphoria patient & social media had added to the perceived risk, despite not meeting the standards of evidence.

You feel manipulated because certain sectors of society has made us feel this way. Gender critical is seen by some as trans phobic. I don't see the two as the same thing.

Look at it this way, if anyone in your socal circle held you responsible for their suicidal feelings because you didn't like the cake they made you, or because you wanted to end the relationship, would you be responsible? No.

I, like you, wish no harm on trans people like your friends, but that doesn't mean I have to have to sit back while the needs of others are walked over.

Rights for one group don't trump another.

Take a break from social media. I frequently step away when I feel myself bubbling over on issues close to my heart, especially after I misread a post on twitter one night & posted a comment that very much caused upset.

Cass highlighted that there are many ways into gender distress and there are different routes out.

She suggested that for a very small percentage of those with gender distress, puberty blockers, might be one of the treatments offered and this needs exploring through clinical trials.

I don't see why we should value consensus with no evidence.

Consensus can be come to for all kinds of reasons, the wellbeing of the patient is not necessary a factor,

Many of these 'experts' have built careers on this topic. Of course they don't want to see that challenged. Intimidation tactics can be used to prevent those who disagree from speaking out. Those who dissent are generally cast out, thus not disturbing the 'consensus'.

I have heard activist medical professionals use this framing before, but to what extent are patients aware that their care is being based on 'consensus' rather than actual evidence? It's a very concerning sleight of hand.

People who take their own lives or are serious about it usually don't want people to know fo intervene... so don't announce it. This is the sad thing about suicide, so the people who are vocal about it usually don't intend to.

Yup, thousands of highly accredited experts globally can't all be ideologically 'captured'. You'd also see a substantially higher number of detransitioners which you don't.

You sound like Alex Jones.

Then the answer for trans women is to campaign to change the law in the U.K.

the answer is not to break the law.

Gender affirming care is legal in the UK for adults & also legal for minors if they are accepted under the research program.

Leading gender clinicians knew the science was “shoddy” but pushed it anyway:

https://dailycaller.com/2025/10/03/exclusive-university-of-california-san-francisco-emails-shoddy-gender-science-child-sex-changes/

Of course they can if they kick out/intimidate into silence those who don't agree.

And I see your silly little slur for what it is. You can FRO with that nonsense.

Patients deserve EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE. That has always been the gold standard. Why has this subsection of 'healthcare' abandoned that principle?

Fair warning, this is a very hard read, but this is an example of where this 'consensus based healthcare' has meant for some patients

https://x.com/tullipr/status/1536422533230206976?s=46&t=OKyRO4eweTteo5FEt_J1MQ

You do realise many medical treatments aren't 'gold standard' in terms of fool proof research particularly in medicalisation for mental health for children. SEE ADHD. Oh wait…

The same 'intimidation' routine for COVID vaccines & climate science"?

Just as Thalidomide - the second biggest medical scandal next to gender affirming "care" didn't cause biological deficiencies in every baby whose mother took Thalidomide. But we still banned it as a treatment for morning sickness.

What has that got to do with my post?

they can be gender affirmed in the correct space for their sex. They shouldn’t break the law.

Not all healthcare is perfect, but it should be striving to improve, according to gold standards principles.

And you can quit your silly smear tactics by trying to bring your hot topics into the conversation. You sound deluded. We are talking about healthcare, what's climate science got to do with it? Climate science is heavily evidenced based.

Medical treatments for ADHD can be stopped at any time.

Once a child has missed puberty the sterility, infertility and lack of sexual function cannot be reversed.

So if you think the rationale for the treatment of ADHD with medication is inadequate, how the hell do you support the sterilisation of children?

Do you have anything to say about the fact gender clinicians admitted the data is poor but still push it? That’s activism.

As I said, 'experimental' treatments aren't anything new in the medical profession.

As far as sterilty goes, it's not a zero sum game. Individual values vary where some people may value their mental health more than their fertilty & be prepared to risk some poorer health outcomes to maintain their sanity & fit into society better because when they don't are socially ostracised as freaks.

As I said, 'experimental' treatments aren't anything new in the medical profession.

Firstly, well done on acknowledging that the treatments given to gender distressed children are experimental. That’s progress. You’ve done well today after acknowledging the fetish in adults.

Children. We are talking about children. Experimental treatments on children require extraordinary circumstances, namely that the child will die without the treatment. We know that isn’t true and the negative effects are significant.

As far as sterilty goes, it's not a zero sum game. Individual values vary where some people may value their mental health more than their fertilty & be prepared to risk some poorer health outcomes to maintain their sanity & fit into society better because when they don't are socially ostracised as freaks.

This is a lot of words to say it’s ok to sterilise children so they can “pass” better. You said “people” but it’s children.

How can a child of 9, 10, 11 know that their individual values include being sterilised? Can a child that age understand properly they are giving up any chance of having a family of their own? Or any sexual function? Or an orgasm? Do you think a child can hold such individual values?